On 8/7/07, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > | And the more I look at it the bigger my headache. I'm going to have to > | start doing some of the TFRCbis rev02 stuff given the intertwining > | with Faster Restart. > I take it that you are aware that the authors of the Faster Restart draft > are in the process of replacing the current version with an entirely different one > based on cwnd window validation. I'd check with the authors for their time plan. > No! I just checked Sally's slides from IETF meeting held and it didn't mention this at all. Where did you get this from? > Having rev02 in full length (and provided feedback), I found other issues in rev02. > There are a couple of things (such as receive-sets) which make implementation even more > complex. Plus, the situation is like Faster-Restart: the draft is in a volatile state, > some feedback (after recent IETF) seems to not have been addressed, the next rev is due > in December, and only after the IETF meeting can some convergence/clarity be expected. > Yes I agree receive sets are complex. I didn't see your feedback - maybe I didn't look properly - can you send to me? > | I'll probably post back patches from time to time that you can do what > | you want with. (Ignore, integrate or somewhere in between) > I'd say, we put this up as a fork of the DCCP test tree? > However you want to handle is fine. > If you encounter issues or problems with the test tree and there are things > - outside the rev00 and rev02 discussion - > which can make the test tree better, then of course this goes into the test tree. > > But due to the entanglements, I'd much prefer to keep rev00 and rev02 code separate > from each other. > Understand. -- Web1: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Web2: http://www.jandi.co.nz Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
